Differences in Reading Level and Commercial Information Content in Pharmacy-Provided Health Information Printouts
To determine whether the reading level of health information printouts and the inclusion of commercial information varied in a statistically significant manner in printouts obtained from a retail pharmacy.
A total of 31 different health information printouts were evaluated for reading level using the Simplified Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) readability analysis. Chi-square was used to determine differences in the presence or absence of four commercial content parameters: mention of a health organization, mention of a manufacturer, mention of a drug, or mention of a dose.
A single-sample t-test revealed a statistically significant difference in reading level among the health information printouts, t(30) = 47.91, p < 0.000, two-tailed. Chi-square analysis found no significant difference in whether a health organization, χ2(1, n = 31) = 1.58, p = 0.21, or a manufacturer, χ2 (1, n = 31) = 2.61, p = 0.11, were mentioned. There was a statistically significant difference in whether a drug, χ2(1, n = 31) = 9.32, p = 0.002, or a dose, χ2(1, n = 31) = 20.16, p = 0.000, was mentioned.
The fact that reading levels and the mention of a drug or dose was significantly different among the printouts suggests that these were not random events. It is thought that printouts, which have strong commercial overtones, are prepared in a manner to influence consumers to seek these products from their health care provider and not to strictly provide information on a particular health condition or disease state.
Key WordsCommercial information Health information Literacy Readability analysis
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 2.Davis TC, Crouch MA, Wills G, Miller S, Abdehou DM. The gap between patient reading comprehension and the readability of patient education materials. J Family Practice. 1990;31(5):533–538.Google Scholar
- 10.Ryan-Haddad A, Bramble JD, Lee B, Mucker A, Kellner V. OTC product labels and older patients. U.S. Pharmacist. January 2000:38–47.Google Scholar
- 12.Marinac JS. Outpatient Cardiology. In Burke JM, Coonce SL, DeYoung GR, Hak LJ, Kuehl PG, Marinac JS, Mays-Holland TA, McMullin T, Oles KS, Smith CL. (Eds.) 2000 Update in Therapeutics. Kansas City, MO: American College of Clinical Pharmacy; 2000: 334.Google Scholar